Re: Blow-by-blow account of Brothers to the Rescue tragedy

"Dan Christensen" <dchris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Aug 23, 1:11 pm, PL <pl.nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipping portion of PL's posting already debunked here, or too lame
to bother with]

Bu which comrade Dan means he snipped what he can't refute.

"Three years ago and earlier, in 1992 and 1993, in Miami, a United
States Congresswoman from Florida organized a major campaign to
petition the Pentagon to provide several Cessna 337s or O2s to the
group that participated in the incident of 24 February. She was very
explicit and active, making many statements and taking a number of
initiatives. It would seem that she was successful, because on 19
of that year the Miami Herald published a report on its editorial
page, written not by just any journalist but by Mr. David Lawrence,
the editor of the Herald."
does not prove that any of the planes shot down had military markings

We have evidence here that the BTTR planes had USAF markings both
before and after the shootdown.

It doesn't.
There only element that made it "seem" that planes were provided refers
to a plane seen AFTER the incident.

Scroll up, idiot! See the part about photos in the Miami Herald
clearly showing USAF markings??? That was several years BEFORE the
shootdown -- in 1993!

Three years before comrade DAn and at a point that they seem to have
acquired Airforce Surplus planes.
All fotos of the planes involved and the planes used at the time of the
shootdown - not any possible replacement bought later - show the planes had
civilian markings.
You only show crap that predates the killings by 3 years when some planes
were acquired and of 5 months later when probably replacements were

NOTHING refers to the planes shot down.

It refers to BTTR planes that were found to have USAF markings in 1993
and three years later, AFTER the shootdown.

Thanks for confiirming that you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that any of the
planes had military marklings in February 1996
You are again exposing your own lies.

One lie exposed.

Yours, Mr. Lobbyist!

In this account, Mr. Lawrence tells us of a trip he took with the
group known as Brothers to the Rescue, the group in question. Like
good journalist, he accompanies his account with photographs,
including some of the plane that was used. In one, the marking
"N2432S" is quite sharp; in another, four letters are clearly visible
on its wing: "USAF". In other words, this is not merely a type of
plane that is used by the military; it is not, as the Congresswoman
claimed, just that similar aircraft were to be found in airports in
Florida ever since the end of the conflict in Central America; Mr.
David Lawrence Jr. actually flew in the one bearing the marking
N2432S, from which the United States Air Force marking had not even
been erased.
the conclusion that it is a USAF plane is incorrect
Lots of old planes bought second hand by military aficionados still
carry all markings.
The fact that letters are on a planes does not mean it is fully
like a military plane.

If you fly without permission into enemy territory with military
markings, there may be consequences.

"Enemy territory"? Planes go from the US to Cuba all the time.


Only genuinely civilian aircraft without military markings, and with
permission from Cuban ACC.

actually: the BTTR planes did not go to Cuba, they hovered on the
territorial line and had no military markings.
You have been uanble to present even ONE witness that said the planes
involved had military markings.
The markings planes had 3 years earlier after being acquired from army
surplus of 5 months later as replacements say nothing about the colours of
the planes that were shot down. All images of that period indicate they

The pictures and video of planes shows they
Link doesn't work.
View footage at Youtube
A trailer for your propaganda flick here -- nothing more.
A trailer with a reconstruction that exposes your lies.
How so? You have no documentation for any of the clips shown

it is film about the killing reconstructing what happened showing
identical planes.

You have no proof of this.

Have a look at the trailer.
That is what they say.


So, I guess we must believe them

the fact that they expose your lies must bother you.

Again the standard reply to your "lobbyist" lie Mr. Cyber-liar (posted at
the end of the reply to each time Dan Christensen repeats his lie)

Quote me comrade Dan. You claimed you can and you never did.
We both know you can't.

Try something like this:

"In my opinion the advances made by the Revolution are morally well
worth fighting for and justify the use of these extraordinary measures.
In this case, the ends do indeed justify the means.
These measures, however, would NOT be morally justified in propping less
worthy regimes in the region -- the USA and its vassal states in the
Caribbean and Latin America come immediately to mind."

"It is wrong to think that a particular end justifies EVERY means. At
this time, for example, it would be wrong of the Cuban government to
send death squads after their opponents as happens in Mexico and
Colombia. Again, the actions of the Cuban government in detaining these
so-called dissidents seem quite mild in comparison and are morally
justified under the circumstances."


You lie about me as you lied about Wayne Smith, Amnesty
Genocide Watch, ..........

Still waiting for the "Geneva" proof comrade Dan.
That "episode" clearly exposes your lies.

As I said comrade Dan.
Every time you post that lie about me I post the truth about you.

Remember the lie about "lobbying in Geneva" while I actually was on
vacation in Cuba (as the source IP address of my posts in SCC at that
time prove).
This was your false claim:
"Taking a little break from arm-twisting in Geneva, Mr. Lobbyist?"

Your inability to substantiate any of it is the best proof of your lies.

Nothing more than another example of your lies and misquotes like the
ones below:

YOUR LIE about Wayne Smith
"It is clear from Smith's article here (and his website, CIP Online)
that he does, in fact, support an immediate and unconditional lifting
of your beloved embargo."

HIS own words:

'We should reduce tensions, not aggravate it, making it clear to the Cuban
government that we do not have hostile intentions toward them,'' Smith said
during a 40-minute speech at a conference titled Cuba and the United States:
Relations in Permanent Conflict, Causes, Effects and Solutions.
''I did not say lift the embargo without conditions,'' he said.
You can enter after a free registration.

Permanent copy in the Cubaverdad archive:

YOUR LIE about Amnesty International.
Another example of the same lie: putting words in people's mouth.

Do you deny that in your posts you put some snippets from the report
quoted below and on your site you also falsely claim about the same

"Today, for the first time, Amnesty International has explicitly
denounced the US embargo on Cuba in humanitarian terms, and made clear
its support for the immediate and unconditional lifting of these cruel

Link to the "report": (the one you didn't give until I shamed you in to it)

They aren't calling for an "immediate and unconditional" end to the
trade sanctions in that report, are they?
Do you deny you snipped the words "immediate and unconditional" from
these sentences in the report (THE ONLY PLACES WHERE THEY ARE USED):

"in 1.
"On the basis of the available information, therefore, Amnesty
International considers the 75 dissidents to be prisoners of
conscience(2) and calls for their immediate and unconditional

In 8.1
" to immediately and unconditionally release the 15 prisoners
previously named by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience.

" to immediately and unconditionally release anyone else who is
detained or imprisoned solely for having peacefully exercised their
rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly."

and added to those snippets your own words to create this sentence on
your lying website:

" Amnesty International has explicitly denounced the US embargo on Cuba
in humanitarian terms, and made clear its support for the immediate and
unconditional lifting of these cruel sanctions"

that sentence:
1. isn't in the report
2. isn't supported by the tenure and the conclusions of the report

You snipped two three words used by Amnesty to condemn the Castro
regime and abused them in a sentence to imply support for your cause: a

What the report actually recommends about the "embargo" is:

"Amnesty International calls on the United States government
- to immediately suspend decisions on any measures that could toughen
the embargo.
- to review its foreign and economic policy towards Cuba, with an aim
towards ending this damaging practice.
- to place enjoyment of the full range of human rights at the
forefront of its concerns in developing new policy towards Cuba."

Clearly no immediate and unconditional end is demanded as Dan claims.
The request is for not stiffening the sanctions and to review a policy
that places "enjoyment of the full range of human rights at the
forefront of its concerns".


Lies and more lies from comrade Dan Christensen, the resident Canadian
Stalinist propagandist of SCC.